4.3 Article

Interspecific Differences in Tannin Intakes of Forest-Dwelling Rodents in the Wild Revealed by a new Method Using Fecal Proline Content

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ECOLOGY
卷 37, 期 12, 页码 1277-1284

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10886-011-0045-y

关键词

Acorn abundance; Apodemus speciosus; Apodemus argenteus; Myodes rufocanus; Proline-rich proteins (PRPs); Salivary tannin-binding protein

资金

  1. Uryu Experimental Forest, Field Science Center, Hokkaido University
  2. Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan [19380091, 21380101]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22370006, 19380091, 21380101] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mammalian herbivores adopt various countermeasures against dietary tannins, which are among the most widespread plant secondary metabolites. The large Japanese wood mouse Apodemus speciosus produces proline-rich salivary tannin-binding proteins in response to tannins. Proline-rich proteins (PRPs) react with tannins to form stable complexes that are excreted in the feces. Here, we developed a new method for estimating the tannin intake of free-living small rodents, by measuring fecal proline content, and applied the method to a field investigation. A feeding experiment with artificial diets containing various levels of tannic acid revealed that fecal proline content was clearly related to dietary tannin content in three species (A. speciosus, Apodemus argenteus, and Myodes rufocanus). We then used fecal proline content to estimate the tannin intakes of these three forest-dwelling species in a forest in Hokkaido. In the autumn, estimated tannin intakes increased significantly in the Apodemus species, but not in M. rufocanus. We speculated that an increase in tannin intake during autumn may result from consumption of tannin-rich acorns. This hypothesis was consistent with population fluctuation patterns of the three species, which were well-synchronized with acorn abundance for the Apodemus species but not for M. rufocanus.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据